Lovable 'Madman'

Ted Nugent's music, admittedly an acquired taste, assaults the senses and seems to defy sense -- mercilessly blunt and yet expressed with undeniable precision. The same can be said of his views on politics, society and life.

Here in the KintlaLake household, we're quite fond of the ageless "Motor City Madman." We've traveled to see his live performances, and when we heard that Piers Morgan's interview with Nugent would air on CNN last night, well, we made a date to watch it.

Now we don't embrace all things Ted (he swings uncomfortably close to Caribou Barbie, for example), and we cringe when he squibs an easy shot (which happened more than once during his interview with Morgan). Still, we appreciate his unapologetic patriotism and love of liberty -- take this clip from last night's show:



Ok, so he's a passionate defender of an individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms. But for those who think he's a one-issue, suck-on-my-machine-gun guy, check out this segment from AC360° in January:



Notice, especially in that brief debate with Paul Begala, that "Terrible Ted" isn't so terrible. He articulates his views with intelligence and good humor -- always the entertainer, sure, but one who's not allergic to facts or common cordiality.

"I'm 63. I've been clean and sober my whole life. I was raised in a hard-core disciplined environment. To be the best that I can be. And not guess at things but to study evidence. Study conditions. Be aware of my cause and effect.

"And make a decision not based on what felt good or what was comfortable for me but rather what lessons of life taught me. So when I put forth what people call an opinion...I don't project opinions as much as I do share observations of life's realities and the evidence that brings either a quality of life when adhered [to] and learned from, or [destroys] life when ignored and not learned."

In that way he distinguishes himself from the demagogues dominating talk radio and populating our politics. He knows the difference between populism and principle, and he holds fast to the latter -- and that's why, around here, we like Ted Nugent.

Tilting at windmills, are we?

"Why does everyone think I'm paranoid? Do you discuss this behind my back?" (incurably neurotic Danny Zimmer, as played by Jack Weston, in The Four Seasons)

March 30th of this year marked three decades since the attempted assassination of Pres. Ronald Reagan. The round-number anniversary reminded thinking Americans that even the most protected man in the world isn't safe from a determined lunatic.

White House press secretary Jim Brady was seriously wounded in the shooting, and his wife, Sarah, exploited their personal tragedy for a national cause. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence engineered the 1994 "assault weapons" ban, plus countless other federal laws, state statutes and local ordinances that disarmed tens of millions of law-abiding citizens.

Every one of those laws was ill-conceived and unconstitutional. None could be credited, at least not plausibly, with reducing violent crime.

Since those dark days, we've managed to reclaim some of the ground lost to Brady. In 2004, Pres. George W. Bush allowed the Clinton-era ban to expire without reauthorizing it. The concealed-carry pendulum has swung in our favor. We've won two landmark cases -- Heller in 2008 and McDonald last year -- in the U.S. Supreme Court. And Pres. Barack Obama, whose election greatly concerned Second Amendment advocates, has been largely silent on gun control.

Despite that momentum, the National Rifle Association and other RKBA organizations continue to implore us not to let our guard down. That's caused some to call American gun owners "paranoid," accusing us of fighting an enemy that exists now only in fearful minds.

On the 30th anniversary of the Reagan shooting, Sarah and Jim Brady went to Capitol Hill to press lawmakers to resume their undermining of the Constitution, notably by banning "high-capacity" magazines. Guess who else showed up at the meeting?

The President of The United States, Barack Obama.

According to Sarah Brady, as reported by The Washington Post, the president assured her that gun control is "very much on his agenda" and that he's "committed to regulation." From the Post article:

"I just want you to know that we are working on it,' Brady recalled the president telling them. 'We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.'"

So we're just paranoid, eh?

Sarah Brady, supported by a disturbing number of like-minded enemies of the People, envisions "an America free of gun violence." She calls on "men and women of high morals and conscience to join [Pres. Obama]" in making her naive dream come true.

(Presumably, anyone who supports the Second Amendment and believes in the right to armed self-defense is, by her definition, amoral and lacks a conscience. Our "radar" works just fine, though.)

And consider this: A second-term Obama-Biden-Holder-Clinton-Brady administration would have little to lose, politically, by engaging in a full frontal assault on our right to keep and bear arms.

So the gun-grabbers aren't resting and neither should we. The 2012 election is crucial, too, at all levels -- but it's not enough simply to vote against this president's reelection. We need to vote for independent-minded candidates who think critically and place the Constitution above party and polls.

Clues: It ain't Palin-Beck, and it sure as hell ain't Bloomberg-Trump.

Today's notable quotes

"[The birth-certificate controversy] is the most idiotic issue I've seen in American politics. And it was just a crock of nonsense. I don't think the president should have done what he did yesterday."

"Let these people make fools of themselves. I think it's good for the country to see how many idiots there are out there."

"It's a good way to conduct an idiot census in America to see who all the birthers are. It was a good thing and working politically for [Donald Trump] because all of the Republicans that knew anything were trying to run away...and they couldn't get rid of it."

"I find Trump to be very entertaining. I'm kind of for him. I was for [Sarah] Palin, but she didn't want to talk enough. And then Newt [Gingrich] stopped talking, and then [Michele] Bachmann doesn't talk enough. I want more Trump. We ought to have him on TV every day." (James Carville, Democratic Party strategist)

"How did this poisonous and not-very-subtly racist allegation [that Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S.] get such a grip on our conservative movement and our Republican party?"

"[T]hose who imagine that they somehow enhance the value of [their own U.S.] citizenship by belittling the American-ness of their president -- they not only disgrace the politics they uphold, but they do damage that will not soon be forgotten by the voters a revived Republicanism must win." (David Frum, former speechwriter for Pres. George W. Bush)

"It is often easier to attack a person's character than it is to fight it out on the merits of his or her policies. And, as we've already seen, even with Obama's long-form birth certificate in the open, more questions will arise. But they aren't the questions we should be asking. The questions we should be asking are the tough questions: How do we create more jobs in America? How do we seize control of our spiraling deficits? How do we remain competitive as a nation in the century ahead? The conspiracy questions might be easier to ask, and they might score points for the people who ask them, but they don't score points for this republic.

"Like plenty of conspiracy theorists before them, the birthers have had their day in court. President Obama called their bluff and showed his cards, producing the documentation they requested.

"Now it is time for us to turn our attention back to the real questions that need answers. It's time to move on." (David Gergen, former advisor to U.S. presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton)

(Excuse me)

My unambiguous dismissal of Donald Trump in yesterday's post may remind regular readers of my low regard for the former Mayor of Wasilla. Although this country will be better off if neither is elected to national office, these public figures are very different.

I sat through John King's interview with Trump last night. It was painful to watch, but it crystallized for me the critical distinction:

Sarah Palin is out of her league; Donald Trump is out of his mind.

If we're looking for a comparable character, in my opinion, it's not Caribou Barbie -- it's Charlie Sheen.

I'm baffled that Trump's disciples are, by and large, the same people who decry dishonesty and corruption in government. They express distaste for "elitists" and "the ruling class," rightly calling for a return to constitutional values and government by The People.

It would make more sense to me if an arrogant real-estate mogul with a long track record of deceit was their villain, but no -- inexplicably, he's a freakin' hero.

Yes, the Constitution gives the inarticulate Trump the right to thump his chest -- "I've done a great service to [sic] the American people" -- and fool the foolish. But I, for one, hope that the media continue to exercise their First Amendment rights as well, mercilessly riding his megalomaniacal ass and exposing him as the fraud he is.

Poster eyes

When I illustrated yesterday's entry with a half-dozen World War II-era posters, I could almost hear the reaction from some quarters -- a combination of nostalgia for a nation united and revulsion at government propaganda.

It was a different time, a different country. Most Americans alive today can't grasp the concepts of self-sufficiency, conservation and recycling even for their own sake, much less actually sacrifice in service of a greater good.

Take something as fundamental as food. During World War II, citizens were encouraged to plant "Victory Gardens" (called "War Gardens" during World War I), ostensibly so that more farm-grown produce could be channeled to our fighting forces around the world.

It's estimated that by 1944 a stunning 40 percent of all vegetables consumed in the U.S. came from 20 million Victory Gardens.

The feds also urged Americans to "Can All You Can" -- to "put up" surplus home-grown produce for use between growing seasons. (Now you know why your grandma had all those Ball jars on her basement shelves.) Not only did gardening and canning help stretch families' budgets, they also made precious ration points go farther.

Sometimes we forget that The Greatest Generation endured wartime rationing of -- ready? -- tires, cars, typewriters, sugar, gasoline, bicycles, shoes, silk, nylon, fuel oil, coffee, stoves, meat, lard, shortening, vegetable oils, cheese, butter, margarine, processed foods, dried fruits, canned milk, firewood, coal and more. The national speed limit was 35mph.

I have a lasting memory of how my father ate green onions -- base, leaves and all. He was the only person at our family table who did that. At the time I thought it strange. Now I get it.

He wasted nothing. As a child of The Great Depression, he never knew for sure when his next square meal would come. And as a young man during World War II, he understood that food was, in truth as well as by the government's definition, a weapon of that war.

He always cleaned his plate. So now do I and, coincidentally or not, I'm the only one at our family table who can be counted on to do that -- every single time.

Grow your own food. Make it last. Clean your plate. Sound advice -- but can you imagine the dustup today if those suggestions came from the federal government?

Big Brother! Groupthink! Socialism! Hell, these days the First Lady can't plant a garden or push breastfeeding without getting criticized by Caribou Barbie or the Mindless Minnesotan. Nanny state!

There's no law against propaganda campaigns containing good stuff, and yet we've become embarrassingly adept at saluting or dismissing ideas based solely on the source. That's what sustains all anarchists and anti-government cynics. But as I said a couple of years ago,

"Blind rejection, blind acceptance -- both are manifestations of ignorance. Not everything that our government does is sinister, any more than everything it does is wonderful. Skepticism (not paranoia) instructs us to differentiate between the two, and then critical thought (not ignorance) allows us to see facts."

The same goes for political campaigns, of course.

Americans pulled together, albeit briefly, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We couldn't sustain our unity, however, choosing instead to withdraw to safe cover behind walls of ideology.

I don't believe that we have it in us to do what The Greatest Generation did. Our "more perfect Union" is divided beyond the capacity of today's Americans to repair.

What individual citizens can do, within our homes and communities, is to begin reclaiming our American legacy of respect, hard work, frugality and selfless service. We won't see this nation's strength restored in our lifetime, but the work must start now.

How does your garden grow?

Chowder, please -- hold the chicken

"Whoever advised Palin to say this should be fired." (Jonathan Capehart, The Washington Post)

"I read that answer several times, and I still really don't know what she's saying." (Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary)

"All defensiveness and self-absorption. A hefty dollop of chowder-headed babbling re: Egypt as well." (Mike Murphy, GOP consultant, via Twitter)

"We should be used to this by now: lots of feathers, no chicken."
(Jack Cafferty, CNN)

"I have a big problem with people who glamorize dumbness and demonize education and intellect -- and I'm giving a pretty good description of Sarah Palin® right now." (Aaron Sorkin, screenwriter, "The Social Network")

("Sarah Palin" is a registered trademark -- or it will be, presumably, as soon as the former Mayor of Wasilla and former half-term Governor of Alaska re-submits her application to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The first time, last November 5th, she neglected to sign it. And just to show that certain traits are inherited, her daughter did the same thing when applying to register "Bristol Palin.")

More thoughts on Tucson

Several days removed from Saturday's events in Tucson, I'll offer a few opinions and observations.

First, the shooter bears the blame for his crimes, period. Whatever his defects, whatever his influences, he alone is accountable.

Second, there's no justification and no defense for the shooting. Anyone who crosses the line between explanation of murderous acts and apology for the murderer casts doubt on both their sanity and their humanity.

Likewise, the fusillade of accusations and counter-accusations flying back and forth across the ideological divide is absolutely baseless. Oh, there's no question that the likes of Bill Maher and Caribou Barbie (to name just two) exercise their First Amendment rights with few facts and breathtakingly poor judgment -- as Robert Green Ingersoll said of revival ministers,

"They did not know much, but they believed a great deal."

Blaming homicide on the Tea Party or guns for schizoid paranoia, however, is shameful political opportunism.

(Incidentally, a spokeswoman for the former Mayor of Wasilla claimed yesterday that those crosshairs over Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district were, in fact, "a surveyor's symbol." The Queen of Denali didn't cause the deaths in Tucson, of course, but c'mon now -- does anyone with a lick of common sense actually believe that bullshit?)

To reinforce a point that I made on Sunday, our constitutional rights carry consequences. And again, it's not about assigning blame -- it's about taking responsibility. Suppose you tuned to your favorite AM frequency today and heard this:

"This radio program is entertainment, people, not gospel. These are opinions -- my opinions. If you agree, great; if you disagree, that's your prerogative.

"Sadly, some of you out there aren't playing with a full deck. You have a small brain and no life, you're a hammer in search of nails, and you take my hyperbole way too seriously. You'll twist my words into a call to violence -- I know that. It's a consequence of exercising my free-speech rights, but I won't be silenced just because some of you are as dumb as stumps."

That'd be refreshing, now, wouldn't it? I'm not holding my breath.

Today's political wind carries the foul odor of repressive legislation, typically ill-conceived laws that could impose limits on speech and disarm law-abiding citizens. Fact is, if laws could prevent violent crime, the tragedy in Tucson never would've happened.

Here's another fact (or, to be accurate, a prediction): Gabby Giffords will become the next Jim Brady. Take that to the bank.

Finally, the Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket the funeral of the nine-year-old girl who was murdered in Tucson. Granted, the First Amendment gives me the right to express my less-than-fond wishes for God's Assholes. For the moment, I'll exercise judgment instead.

Quote of the day

"I sat next to [former Mayor of Wasilla Sarah Palin] once, thought she was beautiful. And I think she's very happy in Alaska -- and I hope she'll stay there." (Barbara Bush, in an interview scheduled to air on tonight's edition of Larry King Live)

What of independence?

Conservative pundit Dennis Prager's most recent column is "Why I Now Vote Party, not Individual." This is his premise:

"For better or for worse, the notion of voting for the candidate rather than the party is now mostly naive idealism. The Democratic Party is now fully left-wing, and is simply the American version of any European Social Democratic party. It is the party of ever-expanding government. (The Republican Party, in contrast, is -- at long last -- the party of small government.)"

I thought Prager was smarter than that, but there it is -- an unapologetic indictment of independence, wrapped in a simple-minded endorsement of partisanship. (I think he's jumping the gun a wee bit, by the way, in proclaiming the GOP's restraint. As far as I know, the jury's still out on that.)

Prager then shows us that he's completely lost his mind:

"This country would be in considerably better shape if [former Alaska Gov. Sarah] Palin were either vice president or president."

He goes on cite a half-dozen instances in which Caribou Barbie would've made this decision or solved that crisis differently than the current president. Each of Prager's cases pivots on some right-wing chestnut, of course, which explains why he didn't say anything about Palin's demonstrated incapacity (beyond talking points and purely ideological matters) to understand remotely why she'd do what he believes she'd do.

He sums up his confession this way:

"So, it is time for us Americans to realize that the old days of choosing the better candidate are gone. ... We will have to vote by party.

"That's the bad news. The good news is that in almost no case is the choice between a more impressive Democrat and a less impressive Republican. The quality of most Republican candidates this election is the highest in post-war American history, Republican or Democrat. But even if it weren't, a Republican mediocrity would get my vote. My first concern is America's greatness, not the candidate's."

Prager is committed to two-party mediocrity, a mindless allegiance to the status quo that'll sink our nation -- but there is hope.

Today I was heartened by the findings of a Rasmussen survey of 1,000 likely Republican primary voters. Presented with four possible GOP nominees for president in 2012 -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Mayor of Wasilla Sarah Palin -- a significant percentage of respondents told Rasmussen that they'd consider a third-party candidate.

Now that's more like it.

According to Rasmussen, 24% of those surveyed said that they'd be at least somewhat likely to consider supporting a third-party candidate if Huckabee is the GOP nominee for president. For Gingrich the number was 27%, for Romney 28%.

Palin -- drum roll, please -- would inspire 31% of Republican voters to look for an alternative.

I'm not taking those numbers to the bank -- not two years out from the next presidential election, certainly, and not without a specific third-party candidate to consider. Still, it's encouraging.

Maybe independence has a chance after all.

Palin nails 'Raese'

This afternoon, @sarahpalinusa tweeted:

Send GOP 2 DC 2 avoid PA econ disaster under Obama/Pelosi Cap&Tax;workers need Raese

Translation:

Caribou Barbie endorses Republican candidate John Raese for the U.S. Senate seat from Pennsylvania.

Thing is, Raese is running for the Senate seat from West Virginia.

I'm guilty of typos and misspeaks myself, of course -- in fact, I just made a couple of beauties over on Facebook -- and I'm not sure that I could spell "Raese" without coaching from my Morgantown missus.

Not on the first try, anyway.

Then again, I'm just singing in the shower here. The Queen of Denali, on the other hand, portrays herself (and, disturbingly, is seen by many Americans) as a "thought [sic] leader."

Look, I'm sympathetic to all of this anti-status quo, anti-incumbent stuff, but please, can't you Tea People put someone out front who isn't a total dipstick?

Please?

Words & images

"You never let up, do you? You can't just let it set." (CNN's Larry King to Academy Award-winning assclown Michael Moore. On last night's program King asked Moore to react to gripping video of the 33rd and last Chilean miner being rescued, prompting Moore to begin a harangue about the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.)


"I find it abundantly disconcerting that we have this much in common with Wasilla...she's so far off the grid." (An unidentified female Delawarean, after she'd watched last night's debate between U.S. Senate candidates Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell.)


"He was a throwback, a traditional newsman who understood that he was the eyes and ears of his readers. His passing is a great loss to our newspaper and the community." (Editor Ben Marrison of The Columbus Dispatch, speaking of long-time columnist Mike Harden, who died last night at 64. Read Harden's final column here and KintlaLake's personal favorite here.)

Damned right she's not

Never mind that Christine O'Donnell has shown the intellect of a bedpost and the integrity of Sarah Palin -- any candidate whose opening salvo is "I'm not a witch" sure as hell isn't me.

Let's all hope that Delaware's general-election voters are smarter than the ones who voted in the Republican primary.

Unintended consequences

Mike Castle's run as an elected official stretches back to 1966 and includes two terms as Delaware's governor. Considered a moderate Republican, the 71-year-old Castle has served his state in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1993.

Yesterday, Castle lost the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate seat once held by Joe Biden.

While we should honor his contributions, we need not mourn his defeat -- it's time he retired anyway. I mean, if we're going to get The Revolution underway, we need new faces in government. And if those professional politicians and long-toothed incumbents won't step aside, dammit, we should vote them out of office.

In this case, unfortunately, Delaware Republicans have given us a cure that's worse than the disease -- Christine O'Donnell, a 41-year-old marketing consultant and political pundit who's best-known for promoting sexual purity. Seriously.

Addressing supporters last night after her victory, O'Donnell beamed,

"You guys are the visionaries and leaders who made this possible."

By "you guys," no doubt she was referring to endorsers Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachman and (natch) the Tea Party Express.

Yikes -- that's a scary bunch of wingnuts, for sure, but I'll give credit where it's due. O'Donnell's campaign vanquished the national Republican establishment, which threw everything but the kitchen sink behind Castle and still lost. Generally speaking, I celebrate whenever one of the dominant political parties goes down hard.

Who else is celebrating? None other than Chris Coons, the Democratic Party candidate. Here's what greets visitors to Chris Coons for U.S. Senate this morning:

There's also a rather pointed statement, which begins,

"With Christine O'Donnell, we face an ideology rather than a record. One of Sarah Palin's newest 'Mama Grizzlies,' O'Donnell will fight to roll back a woman's right to choose and lead the charge against stem-cell research, falsely claiming that this ground-breaking research exploits women. She has a record of supporting discrimination against gays and lesbians, and pressing for public schools to teach creationism."

Democrats should wait 'til after the general election to break into a Snoopy dance but, given the stark choice between a centrist Democrat and fringe-dweller O'Donnell, in a state like Delaware it's all but certain that Coons will prevail.

That's the rundown -- but what's really happening here?

Citizens are righteously pissed at our dysfunctional government. We're expressing our anger by shunning incumbents, insiders and establishment-backed candidates in favor of fresh political blood. Because the American electorate can't break its addiction to ideologues, however, the transfusion is hopelessly tainted.

"Throw the bums out" serves The Revolution, in my opinion, only if the alternative is independent of mindless ideology and dominant political parties.

The Tea Party, in its early days, was on the right track. Its focus was on constitutional principles and a libertarian approach to governing -- until, that is, it was polluted by ultra-conservatives and co-opted by the Republican Party.

The result, sadly, is typified by Christine O'Donnell -- a unelectable, anti-libertarian, right-wing extremist.

In a perfect Delaware, Republican primary voters would've had an intelligent, truly independent alternative to Mike Castle. They didn't.

Even worse, it appears, they wouldn't have known the difference.

Oh, they meant well, but when they chose a nutjob like Christine O'Donnell, they signaled to a troubled nation that The Revolution may need to be postponed -- indefinitely.

Where were you on 9/11?

No, not in 2001 -- I'm talking about last Saturday, on the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

Ok, I'll go first.

Where I was
As you might expect, on a football Saturday I spent my daylight hours in and around Ohio Stadium for the game with Miami.

Buckeye Nation is the heart of the Heartland and we have our priorities. Before the teams strapped on their helmets and drew first blood, we paid reverent tribute to the occasion.


The Ohio State University Marching Band unfurled a big American flag on the field and played "America." After a moment of silence -- observed by all but the classless and poorly self-policed Miami fans, who wouldn't shut up -- the National Anthem was performed by Columbus' own Rascal Flatts.

It was a stirring rendition and a significant break from tradition. As I said here two-and-a-half years ago, when it comes to the "Star Spangled Banner" I have a problem with performances:

"The national anthem is our national anthem -- it should be joined and sung by The People, not performed for The People. The People should celebrate -- insist on celebrating -- the privilege of honoring our freedom in unison."

I love Rascal Flatts and they did a spectacular job, but let's not make a habit of this, ok?

Toward the end of the first half, the public-address announcer directed our attention to the South end zone and introduced first-responders from throughout Ohio, men and women who serve us every day. Then, before TBDBITL took the field for its halftime show, another group was honored -- FDNY firefighters and paramedics, NYPD officers and other first-responders who bear the physical and emotional scars of Ground Zero.

Last to be introduced: David and Peggy Beamer, parents of the late Todd Beamer. Todd spoke the words, "Let's roll!" on United Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on 9/11.

More than 105,000, tears dimming our eyes, roared for our heroes.

Mrs. KintlaLake and I left the stadium at that point, piled into the truck and drove 130 miles northeast for my 35th high-school reunion. It was our second such trip in 24 hours -- we'd joined a smaller group of my classmates on Friday night for a tailgate party.

This wasn't any sort of 9/11 commemoration, certainly, simply a gathering of aging men and women who remember being children together. We reacquainted and reminisced, laughed and cried, poked and prodded and pretended we aren't getting older.


We're the sons and daughters of dirt farmers, steel workers, meat cutters and firefighters, so we didn't reunite in a fancy hotel ballroom for a seven-course gourmet meal. We came together in a picnic pavilion (a big garage, really) to feast on fried chicken, take-out pizza, grocery-store cookies and cheap beer in 12-ounce cans.

Returning to my old stompin' grounds and seeing the faces of childhood friends -- coming home -- was the right thing to do, putting a perfect cap on my September 11th.

Where I wasn't
I didn't travel to Anchorage, Alaska for Sarah Palin's fundraiser featuring her "buddy" Glenn Beck.


Maybe you think it's ok for public figures to exploit 9/11 to line their pockets -- I don't. The only people who deserve less respect than Palin and Beck are the simple-minded groupies who paid a minimum of $73.75 -- that's $3.75 more than a ticket for OSU-Miami, if you're keeping score at home -- and as much as $225 to see the carnival act in-person.

They're the same people who see these clowns as "thought leaders." I have a question, though -- is "thought leader" the same thing as "attention whore"?

Of course not -- the latter is closer to the truth. And after their self-serving Anchorage gig, maybe we should simplify matters and just call Palin and Beck what they are...

Recommended reading for Palin's disciples

It's useful, as Marines often say of themselves, to be able to tell the difference between chicken salad and chicken shit.

Shortly after Sarah Palin burst onto the national scene two years ago it became obvious that she's the latter, not the former. The ex-Mayor of Wasilla isn't merely a charlatan -- she symbolizes the gullibility of the American electorate.

Vanity Fair's Michael Joseph Gross gave her more of a chance than I did. Gross admits -- as a journalist, believing that she may have been treated unfairly in the press, and "as a Christian" -- to being biased in her favor before spending four months around Palin, her family and her entourage.

The result, appearing in the October issue of Vanity Fair, is "Sarah Palin: the Sound and the Fury." It's not pretty.

"Warm and effusive in public, indifferent or angry in private: this is the pattern of Palin's behavior toward the people who make her life possible. A onetime gubernatorial aide to Palin says, 'The people who have worked for her -- they're broken, used, stepped on, down in the dust.' On the 2008 campaign trail, one close aide recalls, it was practically impossible to persuade Palin to take a moment to thank the kitchen workers at fund-raising dinners. During the campaign, Palin lashed out at the slightest provocation, sometimes screaming at staff members and throwing objects. Witnessing such behavior, one aide asked Todd Palin if it was typical of his wife. He answered, 'You just got to let her go through it... Half the stuff that comes out of her mouth she doesn't even mean.' When a campaign aide gingerly asked Todd whether Sarah should consider taking psychiatric medication to control her moods, Todd responded that she 'just needed to run and work out more.' Her anger kept boiling over, however, and eventually the fits of rage came every day. Then, just as suddenly, her temper would be gone. Palin would apologize and promise to be nicer. Within hours, she would be screaming again. At the end of one long day, when Palin was mid-tirade, a campaign aide remembers thinking, 'You were an angel all night. Now you’re a devil. Where did this come from?'"

Because Palin wraps herself in faith and family, Gross isn't shy about giving us some intriguing peeks behind her carefully crafted facade.

"In whatever remains of Palin’s inner circle...most people are following orders. Some details of the Palins' private life, however, suggest a reality at odds with Sarah's image. In speeches, Palin pays tribute to the man she still calls 'the First Dude.' One of the strangest passages in Going Rogue concerns post-election rumors that the couple was considering a divorce. 'That day in sunny Texas when the divorce rumors were rampant in the tabloids, I watched Todd, tanned and shirtless, take the baby from my arms and walk him back to the ranch house,' she writes, like a frontier Barbara Cartland. 'Dang, I thought. Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?' Locally, much speculation surrounds the marriage. Some say Todd is henpecked, and others see him as the heavy. One person who has been a frequent houseguest of the Palins says that the couple began many mornings with screaming fights, a fusillade of curses: ''F*ck you,' 'F*ck this,' 'You lazy piece of shit.' 'You’re f*ckin' lucky to have me,' Sarah would always say.' (This person never saw Todd and Sarah sleep in the same bed, and recalls that Todd would often joke, 'I don't know how she ever gets pregnant.')"

Gross exposes Palin's vitriol, her hypocrisy and her God complex. He largely avoids one particular topic -- her intellect or lack thereof -- but he does wonder aloud about a recurring theme in her speeches:

"('They talk down to us... They think that if we were just smart enough... ') To some, the message sounds like an affirmation. But is it really? Or does it seed self-doubt and rancor among her partisans, and encourage them to see everyone else as malign?"

It's the latter, of course. Like Caribou Barbie herself, it's chicken shit.

Restoring what?

I'm already on-record asserting that Glenn Beck is (probably) crazy. Still, I don't disagree with him categorically -- even a nutjob can have a good idea or two.

His "America's Divine Destiny" shtick isn't one of them. Neither, for the most part, is the "Restoring Honor" rally he's hosting today at the Lincoln Memorial.

Honor is a personal virtue, not a movement. Honor is neither political nor national. A government or corporation cannot demonstrate honor except through the actions of individuals. Honor is never collective.

Before honor comes intellectual honesty, and few public figures fail the intellectual Smell Test as often as does Glenn Beck.

Beck speaks his truth passionately and without apology, as is his right. And to be clear here, I appreciate his vigilance (until it verges on right-wing paranoia, anyway) and I join him in vigorous defense of constitutional principles (until he starts blathering that his God approves only those who share his brand of theology).

Unfortunately, his pursuit of religious and ideological purity undermines his credibility, along with his ultimate value to the task of saving our nation.

Today Beck will be surrounded (and adored) by his True Believers, exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble peaceably and speak freely. Someone should remind these folks, however, that they're throwing away their hero-worship on a cartoon character.



With that image in mind, it's not at all surprising that Beck's most disturbed disciples are suggesting -- seriously -- that he and Caribou Barbie would be a formidable ticket in 2012.

If that ever comes to pass, whatever "honor" might be "restored" today -- during what pundit John Avlon calls the "2010 Wingnut Super Bowl" -- will evaporate.

Did you know...?
Because Beck's three-hour "Restoring Honor" event is being held in Washington, DC and on property managed by the National Park Service, his website advises attendees,

DO NOT BRING ANY SORT OF WEAPON,
INCLUDING A POCKET KNIFE

The list of "Prohibited Items" includes these five bullet points:

• Firearms (real or simulated)
• Ammunition
• Explosives or incendiary devices of any kind (incl. fireworks)
• Knives, blades, or sharp objects of any length
• No firearms or explosive devices, no open fires

Two things are clear. First, the list obviously was prepared by the Federal Department of Redundancy Department.

And second, it's apparent that Glenn Beck chose symbolism over the Second Amendment.

One in five

According to The Pew Research Center, 18% of Americans say that Pres. Barack Obama is a Muslim.

In other wingnut news, an April New York Times/CBS News poll found that 20% of those surveyed believe that Pres. Obama was born outside the U.S.

Apparently I'm not the only one who wonders about these 20%ers. Yesterday's edition of The Washington Post included a brief article noting (among other things) that one in five Americans admits to peeing in a swimming pool.

I suspect that these are the same numbskulls (18%) who are more likely to vote for a candidate if Sarah "Mama Grizzly" Palin campaigns on their behalf.

Liberty's difficulty

Despite the common assertion that we're "a nation of laws," often it seems that we've become a nation of sideshows. Some of these carnival acts do serve a purpose, though, nudging us back toward our true foundation.

Take California's ban on same-sex marriage. On Election Day in 2008, 52% of the state's citizens approved the ban by voting for the infamous Proposition 8. To all but the most myopic among us, it was obvious that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

"...nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Marriage is a religious sacrament. A church which refuses to marry a same-sex couple is within its rights, but the state has no place prohibiting it.

That a majority of California citizens endorsed fear- and faith-based discrimination, by the way, is irrelevant -- we live in a representative republic governed by laws, not in a democracy ruled by ideological convenience. That's why we have judicial review.

Fortunately, yesterday a federal judge struck down the patently unconstitutional ban. His ruling surely will be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which should be hard-pressed to favor California's wispy, laughable arguments over the Law of the Land.

And then there's the noisy dustup over a developer's proposal to site a mosque two blocks from where radical Islamists murdered more than 2,600 people on September 11, 2001. Opponents of the plan call it "inappropriate" and "disrespectful."

(The incurably inarticulate Sarah Palin tweeted, "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate!" Noting Palin's use of the made-up word "refudiate," one blogger tweeted back, "If Republicans can demand that immigrants speak English, can't we demand same of Sarah Palin?" It's impossible to overstate what a dolt this woman is.)

Ok, back to intelligent discussion here. The First Amendment to the Constitution begins,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

No, those words don't guarantee the developer's right to build his mosque near Ground Zero. They simply preserve one of our nation's most precious principles.

So when we say that we support constitutional principles, do we mean it or not?

In my opinion, anyone who seeks to block this mosque is flouting the constitutional principle of freedom of religion. The louder the protests, the clearer the message -- these folks show themselves to be nothing more than unprincipled xenophobes, thus confirming to the terrorists that they've gauged their target accurately.

We're better than that. Or we should be, anyway.

We find it easy to pay lip-service to our liberties when defending something we agree with. It can get downright uncomfortable, however, when a black citizen must acknowledge that a KKK chapter has a right to assemble peaceably, or when a Christian citizen realizes that the free exercise of Islam is protected, or when a heterosexual citizen has to defer to the Constitution rather than to his homophobia and allow a gay couple to enjoy the same pursuit of life, liberty and property.

Talk is cheap -- liberty has a price. Either we buy the principles we're selling or we don't.

I do.

The perfect summer

Tuesday's sun had been up for a few hours when a young whitetail doe paid me a visit. I sat on the patio behind our house, enjoying my morning coffee while she grazed on rotting crabapples. She eased within ten feet of me before trotting casually back into the woods.

The peaceful encounter happened at precisely the right moment, considering that just 90 minutes earlier I'd learned that my job had gone away.

That sobering development might seem incongruous with the title of this post -- it's not. I'd seen it coming since April, arguably even earlier than that. Although I gave nothing less than my best to the small enterprise, my efforts weren't enough to prevent the inevitable.

Life goes on from here, then, and life these days is rich beyond anything I might've imagined six months ago. My family and I are well and happy -- not without challenges, certainly, but we're creating a satisfying life in a wonderful place.

Be it ever so humble...

Readers who suspect that I remain engaged with current events would be correct. My observations simply haven't appeared here.

It's clear to me, for example, that our national economy is careening toward an even deeper ditch. The ecological damage done by oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico is obvious; the fact that Gulf Coast residents now are paying the tab for making deals with corporate devils has been under-reported.

Between the dysfunctional Tea Party and the anachronistic NAACP, the term "racist" has lost both its meaning and its impact. Mark Williams and Andrew Breitbart are equally simple-minded flamethrowers -- what separates the two is Breitbart's more pressing need for anti-psychotic medication.

Maybe Sarah Palin would be kind enough to share her prescription, since it's apparent that she's not using it herself.


The Supreme Court gave American gun owners a welcome precedent in deciding McDonald v. Chicago, and the issue of illegal immigration, brought to the fore by a new Arizona law born of frustration with the federal government's impotence, eventually will come before the high court as well. I hope that five or more Supremes have the judicial courage to uphold that law.

And so on.

Armed with common sense, critical thought and the Constitution, we battle an onslaught of mindless ideology, political correctness and institutional pussification. Should we become discouraged, we can remember this:

You can still get gas in heaven
And a drink in kingdom come.
In the meantime, I’m cleanin' my gun.

That lyrical consolation comes from Mark Knopfler. For now, I'll leave you with his video.

Bums out, bimbos in?

Former Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth is challenging Sen. John McCain for the U.S. Senate seat that McCain has held since 1987.

Although I have no dog in this Republican primary fight, I do believe that incumbent McCain a) has out-served his usefulness and b) has become the equivalent of an antenna flag, a sort of PINO (principled in name only).

Hayworth, however, represents the worst kind of alternative. A darling of Faux News and other right-fringe media, he refers to himself as "The Consistent Conservative." Truth is, the only thing he does consistently is act like a bimbo.

Anyone familiar with Hayworth knows that. Defying convention -- run to the base in the primary, run to the center in the general -- McCain is appealing to independents and (for example) making light of Hayworth's reputation as a "birther."

To that end, a group calling itself "Friends of John McCain" has released this ad:



McCain, I predict, will distance himself from the spot, which takes a bit too long to make its points, the moment he realizes that he needs every wingnut he can get. He shouldn't, but he probably will.

If Hayworth ends up winning (perish the thought) it'd be a big victory for Nutjob Nation. And that easily could happen -- I mean, fellow Bimbo Brigade member Scott Brown won recently in Massachusetts and Arizona's 5th District sent Hayworth to Washington six times.

I agree that it's high time to till the political soil and plant a new crop of citizens who truly represent the interests of the People. But with the sprouting of figures like Palin, Brown and Hayworth, it looks like we're sowing some damned ugly weeds.